Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A defendant diagnosed with schizophrenia was charged with first-degree murder and related felonies. After being found incompetent to stand trial and not restorable (“NCNR”), the trial court dismissed the charges without prejudice and ordered a civil commitment evaluation. The defendant was discharged from the treatment facility, and the State refiled the same charges, adding a new weapons charge. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that under a recent appellate decision, the State needed judicial approval before refiling charges against someone previously found NCNR.The Superior Court in Maricopa County initially allowed the State to refile charges, finding there was a reasonable belief the defendant’s competency might have changed. However, a different trial judge later dismissed the refiled case, concluding the State lacked sufficient basis to believe the defendant had regained competency. The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s orders permitting refiling, holding that the State must present sufficient information to support a reasonable belief of regained competency before refiling, as required by Johnson v. Hartsell. The appellate court also addressed whether a dangerousness trial could proceed without pending charges and whether the State could rely on a prior NCNR finding.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case and vacated the appellate court’s decision. The Court held that due process does not require the State to obtain judicial approval before refiling charges against an NCNR defendant. It overruled the judicial preapproval requirement established in Johnson v. Hartsell and reaffirmed the standard from Rider v. Garcia, allowing the State to refile charges based on a reasonable belief that competency may have been restored. The Court also held that a dangerousness trial under A.R.S. § 13-4517(A)(4) requires pending charges, may rely on a prior NCNR finding for the same conduct, and that the statute applies retroactively. The trial court’s order authorizing the State to proceed was affirmed. View "CARSON v GENTRY" on Justia Law

A political committee sought to place a constitutional initiative on the Arizona general election ballot that would have replaced partisan primaries with an open primary system. To qualify, the committee needed to submit signatures from at least 15% of qualified electors, as required by the Arizona Constitution. The committee submitted more than the required number of signatures, but opponents challenged the initiative, alleging violations of the separate amendment rule, misleading petition summaries, and various deficiencies in the signature collection process, including claims of duplicate signatures.The Superior Court in Maricopa County consolidated the challenges and set an expedited schedule due to the impending ballot printing deadline. The court first rejected the legal challenges regarding the separate amendment rule and petition summary, a decision affirmed on appeal. After a hearing on the signature challenges, the trial court initially overruled the objections to alleged duplicate signatures, finding the evidence inadmissible, and determined the initiative had enough valid signatures. On further review, the Arizona Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration of the duplicate signature evidence. After further proceedings, including review by a special master, the trial court ultimately dismissed the challenge, finding the statutory method for signature validation unconstitutional as applied, and holding it lacked authority to grant the requested injunction.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case and held that the statutory formula in A.R.S. § 19-121.04(A), which required double counting of some invalid signatures, was unconstitutional as applied to this initiative. The court found that this method effectively raised the constitutionally mandated 15% signature threshold for constitutional initiatives, contrary to the framers’ intent. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment dismissing the challenge, holding that the initiative would have qualified for the ballot absent the unconstitutional double counting. View "SMITH v FONTES" on Justia Law

In 2010, an inmate killed his cellmate in an Arizona state prison, inflicting fatal blunt and sharp force injuries. The defendant was convicted by a jury of premeditated first degree murder. The jury found three statutory aggravating factors: a prior conviction for a serious offense, the especially heinous or depraved manner of the crime, and that the offense was committed while in the custody of the state department of corrections. The jury determined that death was the appropriate sentence.The Arizona Supreme Court previously reviewed the case in 2017, affirming the conviction and the findings in the aggravation phase, but vacating the death sentence and remanding for a new penalty phase to comply with United States Supreme Court precedent regarding jury instructions on parole ineligibility. On remand, the defendant waived his right to counsel and to present mitigating evidence, a waiver the trial court found to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The penalty phase was conducted with the defendant representing himself, assisted by advisory counsel, but he did not present any mitigating evidence or argument. The jury again returned a death verdict, and the superior court imposed the sentence.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case on automatic appeal. The court held that the trial court erred by permitting the defendant to be visibly restrained before the jury without making case-specific findings as required by Deck v. Missouri, but found that this error was not fundamental and did not prejudice the outcome, given the overwhelming aggravating evidence and the defendant’s own choices. The court also held that the defendant’s waiver of mitigation was valid and that the trial court was not required to present mitigating evidence over his objection. The court found no abuse of discretion in the jury instructions, no fundamental error in declining to define “moral culpability,” and no prosecutorial error. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence. View "STATE OF ARIZONA v RUSHING" on Justia Law

Residents of the City of Page proposed an initiative to prevent the narrowing of a specific street within the city as part of a larger Streetscape Project aimed at economic development. The initiative sought to maintain the current size and number of lanes on Lake Powell Boulevard and prohibit the use of public or external funds to reduce its width. The City of Page rejected the initiative, deeming it non-legislative, and refused to place it on the ballot. Consequently, the Page Action Committee and individual plaintiffs filed a special action complaint in the superior court.The Superior Court in Coconino County found the initiative to be non-legislative in nature and ruled in favor of the City. The plaintiffs appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, which affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court applied a three-part test from Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa to determine whether the initiative was legislative or administrative. It concluded that the initiative was administrative because it only affected a specific portion of the road and sought to control the implementation of an already established policy.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that the initiative was legislative in nature because it created a new public policy and provided the means for its implementation. The Court emphasized that the citizens' power to legislate is coextensive with that of their elected representatives and that the initiative proposed a law, not an administrative action. The decision of the Court of Appeals was vacated, and the case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter appropriate relief for the plaintiffs. View "ROUNDTREE v. PAGE" on Justia Law

In June 2021, a deputy of the Maricopa County Sheriff rear-ended the plaintiffs while driving a vehicle owned by Maricopa County. The plaintiffs filed a notice of claim with the clerk of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and subsequently sued the County, arguing it was vicariously liable for the deputy’s negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The County moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting it lacked the requisite control over the deputy to be held vicariously liable. The Superior Court in Maricopa County agreed and granted the County’s motion to dismiss.The plaintiffs appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, arguing that the deputy is an employee of the County and thus the County should be liable for his negligence. The Court of Appeals held that the County was not vicariously liable because it lacked the necessary control over deputy county sheriffs. The court also noted that county sheriffs qualify as public entities for notice of claim purposes under Arizona law.The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether a county can be held vicariously liable for a deputy county sheriff’s negligence and whether the county is the proper public entity for notice of claim purposes. The Court held that a county does not control a deputy county sheriff when carrying out law enforcement duties and therefore cannot be vicariously liable for a deputy’s negligence. The Court further held that a sheriff in his official capacity is vicariously liable for any negligence or misconduct committed by a deputy engaged in law enforcement duties. Additionally, the Court clarified that a claimant may satisfy the notice of claim requirements by filing with the county sheriff’s office, which is responsible for the sheriff’s administrative functions. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of the case and vacated the opinion of the Court of Appeals. View "Sanchez v. Maricopa County" on Justia Law

Roy McAlister invented and patented technologies related to clean fuels and incorporated McAlister Technologies, L.L.C. (MT) to hold and license these patents. In 2009, MT entered into a licensing agreement with Advanced Green Technologies, L.L.C. (AGT), which later retained Loeb & Loeb, L.L.P. for patent matters. Conflicts arose, leading McAlister to terminate the agreement, alleging AGT's breach. McAlister and MT claimed that Loeb & Loeb's actions clouded their patents, causing prospective licensees to back out, resulting in lost profits.The Superior Court in Maricopa County granted summary judgment in favor of Loeb & Loeb on the lost profit damages, finding the plaintiffs' evidence speculative and lacking reasonable certainty. The court excluded the plaintiffs' expert testimony on damages and ruled against them on claims for trespass to chattel, slander of title, and aiding and abetting, but allowed claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent supervision to proceed. Plaintiffs conceded no triable damages remained and stipulated to final judgment against them.The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the exclusion of the expert testimony and the summary judgment on most lost profit claims but reversed on a $5 million initial payment claim, remanding for further proceedings. It also reversed the summary judgment on trespass to chattel and slander of title claims.The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on the lost profit damages and trespass to chattel claim. It concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove the lost profit damages with reasonable certainty, as material terms of the prospective licensing agreement were unresolved. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Loeb & Loeb on the lost profit damages and trespass to chattel claim, vacating the relevant parts of the Court of Appeals' decision. The case was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings on the slander of title claim. View "McAlister v. Loeb" on Justia Law

In this case, the father and mother of B.W. had a contentious relationship, and the father was involved in a criminal incident where he shot and killed a man. Following this incident, the father was advised by his criminal defense attorney not to contact the mother or B.W. to avoid jeopardizing his defense. The father was later charged with first-degree murder and conspiracy but was acquitted in December 2021. In March 2022, the father sought to establish his parental rights, and the mother filed for termination of his parental rights based on abandonment.The Superior Court in Maricopa County found that the father had abandoned B.W. by failing to maintain a normal parental relationship for over six months without just cause. The court rejected the father's argument that he had just cause for his inaction, noting that he did not take any legal steps to assert his parental rights. The court concluded that termination of the father's parental rights was in B.W.'s best interest. The father appealed.The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's decision, agreeing that the father did not demonstrate just cause for his failure to maintain a relationship with B.W. The court held that the father's reliance on his criminal defense attorney's advice did not excuse his inaction.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case to clarify the meaning of "just cause" under A.R.S. § 8-531(1). The court held that "just cause" refers to a reasonable and justifiable reason for a parent's failure to maintain a normal parental relationship, based on good faith. The court reversed the juvenile court's termination order and remanded the case for reconsideration, instructing the lower court to apply the clarified definition of "just cause" in determining whether the father's actions were justified. The Court of Appeals' decision was vacated. View "In re Termination Parental Rights as to B.W." on Justia Law

Fourteen-year-old Christopher "CJ" Lucero was hit by a car and severely injured while jaywalking across a city-owned street to enter his high school campus. The accident occurred near Betty H. Fairfax High School (BFHS) in Phoenix, which is part of the Phoenix Union High School District No. 210. On the day of the accident, there were no crosswalks, school zone speed limit or warning signs, or traffic lights near the school. CJ attempted to cross the street from a vacant dirt lot opposite the school, which was commonly used by parents to drop off students, although the school did not endorse this practice.CJ, through his father, sued the District for negligence, gross negligence, and premises liability. The Superior Court of Maricopa County denied the District's motion for summary judgment, reasoning that the District was aware of the jaywalking and the associated risks but did nothing to mitigate them. The court of appeals also denied the District's petition for special action relief.The Supreme Court of Arizona reviewed the case and held that the school did not owe CJ a duty of care as he crossed the street. The court reasoned that the risk of harm did not arise within the school-student relationship because CJ was not under the school's custody and control at the time of the accident. The court emphasized that the school did not own or control the street or the dirt lot and had no authority to install safety features. The court concluded that the general rule is that a school has no duty to protect students from hazards encountered while traveling to or from school. Consequently, the court vacated the court of appeals' decision and reversed the trial court's order, instructing the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of the District. View "Phoenix Union High School District No. 210. v. Sinclair" on Justia Law

William Chalmers filed for legal separation from his wife, which was later converted to a dissolution proceeding. During the proceedings, Chalmers' attorney requested the appointment of a guardian ad litem due to concerns about Chalmers' capacity. The court appointed Brian Theut as guardian ad litem, who then requested the appointment of East Valley Fiduciary Services, Inc. (EVFS) as temporary guardian and conservator. EVFS retained Ryan Scharber and John McKindles to represent them and Chalmers, respectively. The professionals did not file the required statement under A.R.S. § 14-5109(A) explaining their compensation arrangement.The professionals filed numerous applications for fees and costs, which were initially approved by the court. However, when a new judge took over, Chalmers objected to the fee applications, including those already approved. The court denied the outstanding fee applications, citing the professionals' failure to comply with § 14-5109(A) and noting that they had already received substantial compensation. The court of appeals held that the prior fee approvals were not final and remanded the case to determine if the approvals were manifestly erroneous or unjust due to non-compliance with § 14-5109(A).The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that failure to comply with § 14-5109(A) does not automatically preclude recovery of fees. The court found that the statute is directory, not mandatory, and that the trial court has discretion to rectify non-compliance. The court vacated the court of appeals' opinion, affirmed the denial of fees to which Chalmers timely objected, but reversed the ruling requiring the professionals to disgorge previously awarded fees. The case was remanded to reinstate the initial fee awards. View "In the matter of CHALMERS" on Justia Law

In this case, a construction financer, Mortgages Ltd. (ML), collapsed, leading to numerous mechanics' liens on unfinished projects. ML had loaned $165 million to Tempe Land Company (TLC) for a condominium project, securing the loan with a deed of trust and purchasing a title insurance policy from Fidelity National Title Insurance Company. Contractors began recording mechanics' liens against the property, and ML entered involuntary bankruptcy. The Loan LLCs, created to hold ML's assets, foreclosed on the property but did not extinguish the liens. Universal and VRCP provided loans to ML Manager and the Loan LLCs, securing their loans with deeds of trust and obtaining title insurance policies from Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co.The trial court granted summary judgment to Commonwealth on CMLC's breach of contract claim, finding that the loans were fully repaid, thus precluding coverage under the policy. The case proceeded to trial on CMLC's bad faith claim, where the jury awarded $5 million in damages. Both parties appealed. The court of appeals vacated the trial court's summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, directing the trial court to enter summary judgment for CMLC, and affirmed the denial of Commonwealth's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the bad faith claim.The Supreme Court of Arizona reviewed the case and held that Commonwealth could contest coverage based on policy provisions limiting liability to the unpaid indebtedness. The court found that the loans were fully repaid, thus no covered loss occurred. The court also held that the diminution in lien value did not constitute actual pecuniary damage to support a bad faith claim. Additionally, the court ruled that the collateral source rule did not preclude evidence of loan repayments. The court vacated the court of appeals' opinion, affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for Commonwealth on the breach of contract claim, and remanded to enter summary judgment for Commonwealth on the bad faith claim. View "CENTERPOINT v COMMONWEALTH" on Justia Law